Reviews

TL;DR

• Intricate, captivating plot

• Occasionally feels like the mission may be "impossible" - finally!

• Hints at current fears in society but doesn't really get to the heart of them

• Incredible fight scenes and stand-out stunts

• Wonderful cast, each character bringing something special to the film

• Rebecca Ferguson and Vanessa Kirby underused

• Proof that these films get better and better - one of the best yet

-----------------------------------------------

There's a stereotype that gets thrown about these days, touting that the longer a film franchise goes on, the worse the films become to the point where they're just cheap cash-ins on the franchise's popularity. This is even more so the case when there is no overarching story (unlike Harry Potter, Marvel etc.), every new instalment met with eye-rolls and cries of "another one?" (think Die Hard, Fast and Furious and several horror franchises...). James Bond is an excellent example of a franchise that has avoided this, and now we have no choice but to admit Mission: Impossible films also do not fit this stereotype. On the contrary, aside from the lacklustre first two films, the Mission: Impossible films have improved with each entry. Honestly, I thought it would peak with Syndicate, but clearly writer/ director Christopher McQuarrie knows what he's doing, since Fallout is incredible - perhaps the best in the series.

It may seem strange, but in these films their supposedly "impossible" missions often prove to be very "possible." Fallout, on the other hand, changes this; there are frequent moments where the mission goes wrong, making matters increasingly difficult and complicated. The scope and complexity is suitable for a mission that is said in the very title to be impossible. Not only is the adjective now applicable, but such a plot is much more engaging and enjoyable to watch; constantly fast-paced and rarely letting up, it's such an exciting ride which you can't necessarily predict. The stakes are high and it's so tense, particularly during the finale, that you can't tear your eyes away. Still, despite all this, it's not as impactful as it should be, since we all know deep down that it's going to end happily and Hunt will save the day - they're not bold enough to have an ending like another big blockbuster that came out earlier this year... Nevertheless, there are times where you find yourself questioning if they're going to come out of this on top, adding to the already immense excitement. On top of this, there are elements of the story that seem to reflect our fears today (terrorists, worries about nuclear weapons), but it never really capitalises on this, merely using it to frame the action and no more.

As with most Mission: Impossible films, though, the excitement isn't really from the plot - it's from the action; and there's plenty of action to enjoy here with bold, incredible stunts that stand out. Though it may be a slow start compared to previous films Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation, it soon makes up for it, slowly immersing us in a non-stop thrill ride. Each fight is brilliantly choreographed and performed, every punch making an impact. You'll find yourself wincing throughout the entire film - especially the brutal bathroom fight. In fact, it's that scene in particular where you see various characters' fighting styles. Tom Cruise, Henry Cavill and Rebecca Ferguson all fight in different ways, adding diversity to each scene and making sure the fights are never stale or boring (a danger in films with lots of action). Fortunately, however, there's more to the exquisite action than just fights. As we've become used to in Mission: Impossible films there are multiple stunts that are a joy to watch. Whether it's jumping across the rooftops of London or trying to hijack a helicopter, this film rivals the climbing of the Burj Khalifa in Ghost Protocol.

Another strength of Fallout is how it's more connected to the franchise than the other films. There's now a secure returning cast other than Tom Cruise, including Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames, Rebecca Ferguson and even Michelle Monaghan (although it's a shame Jeremy Renner skipped out on this one). Pegg and Rhames bring some comedy and relief, although this aspect of their characters was underused. Whilst still not necessarily the most fleshed out of cinematic characters, they're lovable and give a stronger personality to the overall film. The female characters though are still the most underused. Ferguson's Ilsa Faust was without a doubt the best part of Rogue Nation and, along with Vanessa Kirby's White Widow, is one of the best parts of Fallout too. Yet again, Ferguson is an enigmatic bad-ass with a vulnerable side who commands every scene she's in, being a perfect female equivalent to Cruise's Hunt. Kirby plays a different kind of woman however; less reliant on her fighting abilities, she uses charm and beauty to get her way, but still carries a danger lurking beneath her performance.

Newcomer Henry Cavill injects more charisma into this role than he does Superman in the DCEU and even fellow agent Solo in The Man from U.N.C.L.E. Suave but obnoxious, we love to hate him - and any fight scene is all the better when he's there; when Sloane describes him as a "hammer," she's not wrong. Sean Harris' Lane, on the other hand, is not as physically intimidating as Cavill, but his character continues in a similar vein from Rogue Nation; cold, calculating and full of malice, Harris' performance is sinister - though still can't beat Seymour Hoffman's antagonist in M:I 3. This is still Tom Cruise's film, however (as well as writer/ director Christopher McQuarrie's). Despite varying opinions on Tom Cruise as an actor, I personally like him and can't imagine anyone else as Ethan Hunt - who else could carry a franchise for six films and seemingly not even break a sweat? In fact, this is arguably Hunt's best portrayal yet, as Cruise delves deeper into his psyche, looking at how his job and actions affect others around him.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout is continuing proof that the films in this franchise get better each time. Though it doesn't go much further than just a spy-action movie, it has a solid cast (both returning and new), breath-taking stunts, nail-biting action and a plot that will keep you invested throughout. Fallout stands out as one of the best in the series as well as the genre as a whole. I can't wait to accept the next mission...

TL;DR

• Enjoyable, but doesn't stand a chance compared to Marvel's last three - Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War

• Simple story without a solid villain

• Less identity than the first film

• Fun, imaginative action and fights

• Too much Peña, too little of John-Kamen and Pfeiffer

• Rudd and Lilly make a good team as Ant-Man and Wasp, but chemistry and relationship are weaker than they could be

---------------------------------

There's no denying that Marvel are on top of their game as of late; let's think back to their last three films - Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War... These were all huge splashes in cinema, the latter two in particular. Now, after the enormous events of Infinity War, we needed something lighter and more easy-going. Fortunately, we have Ant-Man and the Wasp, a film that is noticeably more relaxing. Still, following such incredible and unique films, this one seems a little too formulaic and small, but nevertheless enjoyable.

At first I thought it was because we've just come from Thanos, but regardless of that it's still noticeable that there's a lack of a real villain. Yes, we have Ava/ Ghost and Sonny Burch, but Sonny seems more like a low-key gangster and Ava's intentions are hardly evil or malevolent. Without a real antagonist, it all seems a lot lighter with lower stakes. After all, as Roger Ebert said, a film is only ever as good as the villain... Instead, the story focuses more on their search for Janet, with various people getting in the way. But even then it's not as if the film has a solid identity like the first one; whereas Ant-Man could be described as a heist movie, it's difficult to say what Ant-Man and the Wasp could be described as - a recue movie...maybe?

Still, although the story may be a little too much on the light side, it's never boring. There are plenty of laughs (as we've come to expect from Marvel) and lots of fun action. The best thing about Ant-Man is the opportunity of having more imaginative action scenes we haven't seen before. Cars constantly shrinking and growing as they race through San Francisco is the sort of fresh new action we need. What's best, though, is when the comedy and action come together; last time we had an enormous Thomas the Tank Engine run rampage, this time we have a dangerously large Hello Kitty Pez flying towards the bad guys. And with regards to fighting, if anything the highlight of the action comes from Evangeline Lilly's Wasp, whose smooth fighting skills beat Scott's any day and are an absolute blast to watch.

Comedy perhaps goes a little too far with Peña's Luis, forcing in the same sort of inane jabbering monologues from the first film. If anything, I would prefer less Luis and more from the other members of X-Con. It would have also been better to see more of Fishburne's Bill Foster and particularly John-Kamen's Ghost, whose performance was finely balanced between charismatic and likable to manic and desperate. Michelle Pfeiffer, however, is by far the most underused aspect of the film. To have an actress like Pfeiffer in the cast and to only use her sparingly as merely a MacGuffin seems mad, especially when she seems like an absolutely perfect Janet Van Dyne; glamorous, caring and determined. The heart of the film though is still with Hank and the titular duo. As with the first film, Douglas manages to make Hank likable despite his brusque manner. But it's Rudd and Lilly who carry the film - as you would imagine they should judging from the title. Their banter retains its charm from the first, although it would have benefitted from more chemistry and to explore their relationship more deeply. Still they fight well together, talk well together and make a good team.

I feel quite sorry for director Peyton Reed. There's no doubt that we needed a breath of fresh air after the intensity of Infinity War - and this is it. In comparison to the recent Marvel films, this one never stood a chance of reaching those heights. Though it seems a little too light and formulaic, lacks a solid villain and should have dreamed bigger (pun intended), Ant-Man and the Wasp is still a decent and enjoyable Marvel film to keep us going until next year.

TL;DR

• Stands out amongst other superhero films
• Weaker villain - as is plan and motivations
• Fewer messages than the first
• Elastigirl demonstrates stronger female agency - Disney/ Pixar is doing things right!
• We see more of the characters
• Good humour
• Its style is still unique and enjoyable - blend of 60s Bond films and superhero genre works brilliantly
• A sequel worth waiting for

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nowadays we expect superhero films at the cinema (can anyone remember a time when there wasn't at least one being shown?!). But in a time dominated by Marvel (or DC and Fox trying desperately to keep up) it's refreshing to have a superhero film that a.) isn't based off a comic book, b.) isn't from the usual Marvel, DC etc. and c.) is animated (although that's bound to change with the upcoming Teen Titans Go! To the Movies and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse). Not that Incredibles 2 is completely original - the "2" makes its sequel status clear, but it's been a long 14 year wait since the first... Back in 2004 the only superhero movies we really cared about were Raimi's Spider-Man films... So how does Incredibles 2 fare in an age already saturated with superhero films?

There was something undeniably special about the first film's plot - it had moral messages both explicit and implicit that pleased countless audiences. Many went away with Syndrome's line ringing in their ears - "When everyone is super, no one will be." Ultimately the villain's plot and motivations in Incredibles 2 pale in comparison to Syndrome, as does the character itself. It all makes sense during the film, but after it feels forgettable and devoid of a powerful message. Additionally, I can't help but feel robbed of a large final encounter - but maybe we've become accustomed to Marvel's structure...

On the other hand, it's impossible to walk out of Incredibles 2 without noticing some of the powerful messages conveyed; specifically it's brilliantly relevant and timely feminist message. Let's face it - Elastigirl is a better hero than Mr. Incredible; he's basically a non-green Hulk who hits things hard whereas there's no limit to what Elastigirl can do by contorting her body - she absolutely deserves the spotlight in this sequel. But more than that, Elastigirl's role in this film demonstrates another sense of female empowerment that Disney is doing so well at the moment. Not that Helen Parr is ready to stand up to the likes of Elsa and Moana, but it's definitely a step in the right direction and a good female role model for the young audience.

The sequel also gives us an opportunity to enjoy more of the family dynamics within the Parr family. Although edging on the patronising side, seeing Bob cope with the reversal of the traditional roles adds in a nice bit of comedy, particularly his exhausted face as he deals with Jack-Jack's refusal to sleep and his rising frustration in the face of Math he was never taught. Incredibles 2 allows more of a focus on the family itself, giving the film a more unique feel to the original. As a result, we see a little more of each character; we see more of Violet and her effort to deal with her teenage angst; we see much more of Frozone; and we even see a more maternal side to Edna... It's even better to see more of Jack-Jack, a character who was noticeably side-lined for most of the original.

However the best returning aspect is the style itself. As with the first film, Incredibles 2 marries the 60s era James Bond style with the superhero genre - a beautiful match made in heaven; Michael Giacchino's rollicking brass-dominated score is stronger than ever, strongly evocative of the old Bonds, and the set design is impeccable. I don't know if it was just me, but on top of everything else the music and aesthetic was one of my favourite parts of The Incredibles and I'm just happy it's as good in the sequel as it was back in 2004.

Waiting for sequels (whether we know they're coming or not) is not unusual; after all there were over 30 years between the two Top Gun and Blade Runner films and more than 50 years in between the two Mary Poppins outings, not to mention the countless gaps between Star Wars and James Bond films... even Finding Dory came out 13 years after Finding Nemo. On the whole, I think it's safe to say that the sequels we wait for are worth waiting for (let's forget Godfather: Part III and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for now...).

It may be 14 years since the original but Incredibles 2 is just as enjoyable as the first. Though it may lack the bold heart and strong messages of the first, the characters are out in full force, kicking ass and making audiences laugh in style. This is the sequel we wanted - able to stand proudly amongst other superhero films that have come out in the meantime. As was integral to the film itself, Incredibles 2 is proof that we need more of Pixar's Supers!

P.S. The Pixar short film before the film starts is just as adorable as ever (especially once you get to the end).

TL;DR

• Everything you expect from an Ocean's heist movie - but adds nothing else

• The all-female gender-twist works well

• Very little jeopardy - every problem is solved easily and doesn't excite the audience for more than a scene or two

• Nothing new - even has an ex-relationship sub-plot like in Ocean's Eleven

• Very stylish, but doesn't make up for a lack of characterisation in some characters

• Half of the cast as excellent as expected - the other half not as annoying as they could have been

• A promising start to a potential trilogy...?

-----------------------------------

There's still a way to go, but with any luck cinema audiences might be starting to realise the potency of 'girl power.' 2016's Ghostbusters may not have been liked (at all), but if Wonder Woman showed us anything, it was that enjoyable films led by strong women can still be a strong pull. Now we have a gender-twist on Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven (itself a remake of the original 1960's Ocean's Eleven with Frank Sinatra). I can't help but wish that instead of continuing or rebooting existing franchises with this gender-swap, Hollywood would create a unique franchise... but then again, we all know that would struggle to bring in the same size audience... Fortunately on the whole this works - a stylish and enjoyable, although ultimately unnecessary, take on the Ocean's heist movies that still ticks all the boxes - but sadly, no more than the ones you expect.

Admittedly, it's tricky to take over from precious Ocean's films and do a heist movie that's different. Every cliché and genre trope you can imagine comes into play - even the ex-partner related sub-plot is similar to Ocean's Eleven. But even though it's nothing new, the story is nevertheless an enjoyable one. It's a simple, fun structure with a couple of twists up its sleeve (even managing to wrangle in a couple of former cast members as nice cameos...) One of those twists even gives you that longed for "yay" feeling you need in all heist movies - though it's not quite as euphoric and satisfying as the Clair de Lune scene at the end of Ocean's Eleven. Still, it does have its issues. From the various problems that are inevitably easily solved in a couple of minutes to the drawn-out end with James Corden's insurance man's investigation. The story seems so set on its characters succeeding, that we never pause to question if all will go well; there's no real jeopardy, a huge failing of the film which weakens it. Whether it's a small aspect of the plan going wrong or someone out to get them, nothing poses a threat to excite the passive audience.

Still, it's undoubtedly a fun film even just to watch. Whereas director Gary Ross had to stay fairly grim and gritty for The Hunger Games, with this film he lets loose and has fun - especially with cinematographer Eigil Bryld, who photographs the heist almost as beautifully as he did Bruges in In Bruges. There's still an issue that perhaps they went with style over substance however, since there seems to be more time allowed for aesthetics and style rather than characterisation, sometimes coming across more as an advert than a film - but when it complements the personality of the characters as well as the overall film as a whole, it somehow manages to work.

When initially hearing about the film when it was being cast, I had mixed feelings: with the likes of Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Richard Armitage, Sarah Paulson and Helena Bonham Carter, how could it fail to be anything but excellent? But then they throw into the mix the likes of Rihanna, Mindy Kaling, James Corden... I admit my doubts grew. Fortunately, the good half of the cast are as excellent as you would expect, and the more iffy half is (to my eternal relief) not nearly as irritating as I had feared.

While Helena Bonham Carter's Irish accent is strange and seemingly unnecessary, she's nevertheless excellent and funny. As too are Armitage, Paulson and Hathaway, the latter of whom is a joy to roll your eyes at. Bullock and Blanchett still steal the show as the leads, managing to drum up a nice level of charisma and chemistry to rival even Pitt and Clooney (although they'd still win, but not by too much...). Bullock especially deserves special mention, able to take over from Clooney's former lead so well without even noticeably breaking a sweat.

In an ideal world, the other half of the cast would be different, but as it is at least I can say they don't ruin the film. None of them outstay their welcome and all contribute to the film's story and even give some comic moments! Rihanna hasn't changed my mind that "musicians" should usually stick to "music" - but at least it almost makes up for Battleship and Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets... Corden's casting still beggars belief. I can't help but feel he was only cast to cash in on his current popularity; his part would have been better (and made more sense) played by anyone else.

On the whole, Ocean's Eight is more of a success than it could have been. Yes, it doesn't beat the original Ocean's film, does little to surprise us or shake things up (other than an all-female group) and is a little too breezy and easy-going. But it's still enjoyable with comic moments, has some nice characters and nods to the original without rebooting completely - and it's a refreshing joy to see a female-dominated cast in a film for everyone. Ocean's Nine and Ten perhaps...? (They've left just enough room for a trilogy - it can't be a coincidence!)

TL;DR

• Incredible for a directorial debut from Ari Aster
• Unforgettable in all the good (and horrifying) ways
• Slow start that reveals a well-developed plot
• Includes one of the most shocking and unpredictable scenes in cinema
• Eternal sense of dread - horror throughout the entire film
• Doesn't need to rely on cheap jump-scares
• Brilliant performances from whole cast

When a trailer can proudly boast that a film is "from the producer of The Witch" (presumably referring to producer Lars Knudsen), that's more than impressive enough credentials to lure in even the most discerning horror fan. Though many may not have seen The Witch, it definitely made an impression, provoking a lot of talk about it. Hereditary is similar; it's absolutely not for everyone... but it's impossible not to talk about it, let alone forget it. Even more incredible for a directorial debut, Ari Aster has created a horror masterpiece that will provoke nightmares for generations to come.

As has been made clear by some disgruntled audiences (for whom I admit having an ounce of contempt), it is rather slow to get going - but that's not to say it's ever boring. On the contrary, one accolade Hereditary can be proud of is that it is never dull. It starts more like a drama about a family learning to deal with the passing of a family-member, but it's only when the horror really kicks in that we start to see the film's fantastically well-crafted story. Even before this point though, there is a sinister undertone; a threatening atmosphere that never lets you feel comfortable or safe. Once the horror plot starts to take shape, it's enjoyable to discover the little pieces of information, only really allowing you to understand at the very end. In fact, at the end there is a line which is a little too on-the-nose, explicitly explaining the plot for anyone who fell asleep half-way through. But it's a well-developed plot that may be light on jump scares, but is heavy on everything else. The U-turn is unforgettable, sticking in my mind as one of the most shocking and unpredictable scenes in cinema.

There's a reason Hereditary is being hailed as this generation's The Exorcist. There are several moments in The Exorcist which have gone down in cinematic history; running down the stairs backwards, the spinning head, the act with the crucifix... to name just a few! Several shocking, even chilling and downright terrifying, moments are found throughout Hereditary, especially at the end. Not to say that there are no scares until then; an eternal sense of dread lasts throughout the film and culminates in pure terror. A little silhouette in the corner of the screen that different members of the audience will notice, gasps of shock rippling through the auditorium; countless decapitations; enigmatic moments that will haunt your dreams. Hereditary is a sophisticated horror, not needing to rely on cheap jump scares to terrify. The music is used brilliantly too, able to heighten tension at just the right time.

The cast really sell it too. Even with a small one of just four or five main characters, they all pull their weight. Despite irritating crying throughout, Alex Wolff contributes more than in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle; a noticeably different character at the end, Wolff's Peter is the unsung protagonist of the film. One scene in particular, involves him just sitting at the wheel of a car for an endlessly long time, all his character's emotions and thoughts easily legible from just his face and eyes. Byrne's Steve takes a while for his character to really become layered and interesting, but when all hell breaks loose and only Annie and Peter are aware, you don't know whether to feel sorry or frustrated with him. However, it's Toni Collette and Milly Shapiro who really steal the show. The fact that, along with director Aster, this is Shapiro's first film is astounding. Even without the disconcerting make-up, Shapiro's performance is the very definition of creepy - but the film wouldn't be the same without her. Collette's Annie's slow descent into madness is where the film really comes alive though. It's a steady progression and every look and line can be read in various ways. You'll feel sorry for her until you're terrified of her.

There are some horrors, like the recent Truth or Dare or the seemingly unending series of Purge films, where I think it's a tacky genre watched by people who don't really want great films. But every now and then comes a film that saves the whole genre; A Quiet Place, Get Out, It... even Mother! if you count that as a horror (and I certainly do)... and of course Hereditary. This has everything you could want from a sophisticated horror - enough jump-scares to keep it entertaining, an eternal sense of discomfort and dread, shocking twists, a constant mystery and a terrifying climax - and all this from a feature-length directorial debut. Whatever comes next for Aster, let's hope it inherits the quality of this film.

TL;DR

• Aesthetics and music blend effortlessly into the Star Wars universe
• Little to do with Episodes, other than small glimpses of the Empire, with no Jedis in sight
• Enjoyable plot, but a little too busy and over-stuffed at times
• Doesn't tie up story as neatly as Rogue One, but unanswered questions place it more solidly in the wider universe of Star Wars
• Lacks a distinct personality, something original directors Lord and Miller could have achieved...
• Ehrenreich and Glover are exceptional as young versions of Han and Lando, evoking the original performances brilliantly
• Finally we see more Chewie than in the last few films
• L3-37 is a throwaway droid and more should have been done with Beckett, but characters Qi'ra and Dryden Vos make up for it

-------------------------------------------------------

There's no denying how Star Wars came back with a vengeance after Disney bought it to add to their ever-expanding Empire (pun intended). Mostly, this has been a good thing for fans of series (especially if you liked The Last Jedi, the Episode that split fans massively). Many have welcomed the idea of prequels and spin-offs, eager for the chance to explore characters' pasts and aspects of the galaxy far, far away that we've never seen before. The first of their Star Wars Story anthology, Rogue One, worked well, many saying it seemed refreshing to see this universe outside the confines of the Jedi-dominated episodes. It still proves to be an exciting idea with Solo: A Star Wars Story, although it does still leave a little more to be desired. Still, there's no denying how enjoyable the film is nevertheless.

While this is clearly Star Wars, there's very little other than characters that connect it to the universe we know. There's not a great deal of the Empire, let alone the rebellion or Jedi. This could almost be a standalone sci-fi film if it weren't for the typically Star Wars-esque aesthetic and music - and the characters, of course. This allows Solo to feel less burdened and hindered by the other films, free to do as it pleases. For the most part, its plot is solid and enjoyable. At its heart, it's a MacGuffin film that desperately includes the famously-mentioned Kessel Run, pleasing science geeks everywhere by making clear that parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Still, sometimes they try to fit a little too much into the story and it feels quite busy. The time spent of Kessel in particular felt very crammed and manic; you're not sure what they're trying to focus on... Then during the Kessel Run itself they're running from one thing to the next to the next... On one hand it's a non-stop, thrillingly wild ride - but on the other, it's exhausting and too busy, not giving you a chance to breathe and take in what's going on. Whereas non-stop action works with Mad Max: Fury Road, there's not nearly as much plot-points stuffed in there. The story also seems to open up a lot of questions that are left unanswered. It's a shame it doesn't tie it up neatly as Rogue One, but still keeps it interesting and is a joy to see it reference and place itself firmly in the wider universe of the franchise. One surprising inclusion of a fan-favourite character is certainly exciting as is the obvious cameo by regular Warwick Davis. Here's hoping that there's a common thread in these Star Wars Stories so we're not left with unanswered questions for long.

If there is to be a common thread isn't these spin-off films though, it's still important that they give each film a unique feel and personality, something that Solo lacks. For example, Rogue One had a distinct feel and personality in that it was absolutely a war film. On the other hand, Solo could have been unique with a swashbuckling adventure feel - something original directors Lord and Miller would have excelled at before Ron Howard took over... Not that that tone is completely absent, but it lacks a distinct personality. Still, it's fun and fits into the overall feel of a Star Wars film; it's just a shame that there's nothing that feels special of different about it. It certainly is enjoyable to see the Star Wars aesthetics blend in so well, opening up the galaxy for us to explore. Powell's music is a perfect extension of John William's iconic scores too.

There was a lot of worry as to how well the lead actor would cope with playing a younger version of an iconic cinematic character. Fortunately, Alden Ehrenreich does a terrific job, brilliantly evoking a young Harrison Ford from handsome looks with floppy hair to drooly, cocky voice. He's not a dead ringer for Ford, but he's not doing an impression. They're merely recreated the look and he bases his performance off the original with an impressive result. The same can be said for Donald Glover's young Lando, who's arguably even better than Ehrenreich, absolutely nailing that charming, treacly voice. It's nice to see the two of them meet after seeing them in Empire Strikes Back, but more Lando is needed. Their relationship in Empire Strikes Back seems much deeper, filled with more history. Solo would have benefitted from more Lando with better chemistry and a stronger bromance between the two. Instead most of the bromance is with Han and Chewie, a remarkably pleasing member of the cast, who is finally given the screen-time he deserves after being painfully underused in The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi.

The new droid L3-37 is really a throwaway droid who's ultimately unnecessary. Clearly the studio want another K-2SO to steal scenes like he did in Rogue One, but she doesn't make the same impression, though certainly still gets her fair share of laughs. Woody Harrelson's character seems like a strange one for Han to be inspired by. Not nearly as suave and cool as Han grows to be, Beckett is a missed opportunity, who should have done more than just swirl his guns and look cool. Emilia Clarke ditches her blond wig from Game of Thrones and embraces the typical Star Wars look for all female characters in the series - pale, brunette and beautiful. Why are they all the same? Still Clarke is wonderful, making Qi'ra interesting, enigmatic and effortlessly likeable. A joy to see her dazzle audiences outside Westeros. Finally Paul Bettany moves from superhero in Marvel to villain in Star Wars (Disney must be loving him). As with most English villains (because apparently that accent works for bad guys...), he's sincere and threatening, though isn't quite the powerful adversary Han deserves for his origin story.

Solo: A Star Wars Story didn't perform as well at the box office as predicted - but who could after Avengers: Infinity War (with Deadpool 2 sliding in soon after)? That doesn't correlate to the strength and quality of the film however. This is no Empire Strikes Back or Force Awakens, nor does it have a distinct personality like Rogue One; and yes, maybe this is just Disney trying to squeeze as much as possible from the Star Wars universe. But when it's this fun, does it really matter? It's an undeniable joy seeing younger, fresh-faced versions of these characters we love from the original films soar onto our screens for a fun adventure, albeit a busy one with a little too much crammed in. Nevertheless, this is still light, easy-going and enjoyable. Nothing sets it apart, but it's a solid adventure in a galaxy far, far away that will keep us happy until Episode IX...

TL;DR

• Beat the sequel curse - better than the first one

• Better story with more heart

• Story takes a surprising direction

• Not bogged down in origin stories

• Plenty of jokes and references, never falling short on comedy

• As much a comedy as it is a superhero film

• Breathtaking, exciting action sequences

• Humanises Deadpool more

• Returning and new characters all a joy, but never steal the light from Reynolds

• Best post-credits scene yet (yes, even better than MCU)

------------------------------------------------

Despite the wide variety of characters in Marvel comics, Deadpool has always been a unique; the Merc with a Mouth has won the hearts of comic fans worldwide and more recently the hearts of film fans too with 2016's Deadpool. The first film was an excellent portrayal of the character, Reynolds proving the perfect choice for playing the inimitable Wade Wilson. Hopes were naturally very high for the sequel, but, as with all follow-ups, there was a worry that it wouldn't live up to the original; that it would perhaps go too far or be just a rehash of what we've seen before. Fortunately, that's not the case - if anything, Deadpool 2 is better than its predecessor, with a better story, more characters and much more references and humour. Still, although this film succeeds on every level, it still struggles to be quite as unique and memorable as the titular character himself.

The story in Deadpool 2 is hugely better and more entertaining than the previous one, jumping straight in with full-on Deadpool action and leading on to a genuinely engaging narrative. Unlike the first, this one doesn't have the handicap of being bogged down in an origin story. This results in a better story with much more heart and more even more comedy. In fact, the story takes a fairly surprising turn, taking us in an unpredictable direction. Despite the sheer volume of promotion for this film, it's commendable that much of its plot details were not leaked ahead of time. As much as it mocks fellow superhero films, in this respect it's an improvement on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, a film that was famously criticised for giving away the main antagonist at the end as well as the inclusion of Wonder Woman.

On top of this, it has a different feel to a lot of other superhero films and comes across as notably fresh even in an already saturated genre dominated by the MCU. A lot of this has to do with how Deadpool is different and how humour is at the heart of both the character and the film. There are plenty of references which can make anyone laugh, particularly film and comic fans though. It takes a certain boldness for a film to ridicule itself, but it definitely works to its advantage here. There's even wise-cracking and jokes in the middle of intense action scenes, never falling short on laughs. These jokes make the otherwise breathtaking and exciting fight scenes that much more enjoyable. It's just as much a comedy as it is a superhero film, arguably even funnier than most comedy films released. This is precisely what we need in this genre, making Deadpool 2 stand out even though coming out just weeks after record breaking superhero film Avengers: Infinity War.

Since wise-cracking and comedy is at the heart of Deadpool's character himself, it then comes as no surprise that this is without a doubt Ryan Reynolds' film. Once more completely throwing himself into the role, he's proven himself yet again to be perfect as Deadpool. This film managed to give him a chance to humanise the character, giving us a more emotional Wade amongst the ceaseless joking. Not that our titular hero gets edgy at all - that duty is served perfectly by newcomer Josh Brolin. Even though we've just seen him as Thanos, he makes an excellent adversary to Deadpool as Cable (although he's still called Thanos once in one of many great one-liners), with a large heart underneath the gruff, rugged persona. Another newcomer, Zazie Beetz also fits in very well as an opposite to Deadpool, rolling her eyes at all his jokes and quips, often effortless managing to steal the spotlight in some of the action scenes. Julian Dennison too is very welcome in his role, only his comedy talents seem slightly underused - still, he's gone from Hunt for the Wilderpeople to a more mainstream film. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction for a up and coming star. Other supporting characters return fresh-faced and excited to continue, but they never manage to steal the spotlight from Reynolds.

Anyone who enjoyed the first film is guaranteed to enjoy the second. Everything that we liked from the former returns, this time bigger and better; more story, more characters, more action, more laughs, more heart - think Avengers was the only excellent superhero film this year? Think again. It's almost as if Black Panther was a starter, Avengers was the main, Deadpool 2 is dessert, and Ant-Man and the Wasp will be coffee. Not only is it impressive for Deadpool to stand among the MCU titans, but dessert has never been so fun.

TL;DR

• A phenomenal achievement - 10 years of films leading up to this has been worth it

• Simple story allowing so much to be packed in

• Infinity Stones are more than just dull McGuffins

• A wildly different story and structure to most superhero films

• Structure more like a Game of Thrones episode - this works to its benefit

• The ending is bold and brave - a real strength of the film as a whole

• All characters are fantastic - their interaction is the greatest joy of the movie

• No one character hogs the film - everyone gets their fair share of screen-time

• Thanos is the greatest Marvel villain so far

• Absolutely hilarious and very quotable

• Sublime, varied and non-stop action that never feels like too much

• Sets up Avengers 4 very well

• The greatest Marvel film yet

--------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. Just wow. For a film that generates so much hype in the months running up to its release, it's incredible when it not only meets expectations, but exceeds them to the point where even more hype is garnered. There are so many words to describe Marvel's latest - emotional, epic, fun, stressful, scary, hilarious, incredible. In about 2 and a half hours you will laugh, you will cry and you will cheer. It's a phenomenal achievement, the biggest marvel of Marvel yet, and a huge round of applause is warranted to everyone involved in the film. You don't need to be a fan to love this film.

It's a very simple story without lots of twists and turns, making it very easy to follow - that is, provided you've seen all (or at least most) of the films so far. For those who have been at least casually following this monumental cinematic series, everything will make sense and the characters are already known. By letting the previous films set everything up, that allows Infinity War to pack so much more in the film and just get on with it from the word 'go'. The ever-important Infinity Stones themselves are much more than simple McGuffins - the film makes the audience care about them, Thanos visibly becoming stronger with every one he collects. It's not just as simple as Thanos collecting six stones, however. Instead this doesn't follow the usual superhero story or structure, instead being utterly unpredictable, allowing the audience no respite or way to prepare for the madness that occurs. This is a very different type of superhero film, Marvel able to break away from the mould. This is a strength of the film and they absolutely do not shy away from it. This is best seen in the ending which will go down in history, along with the likes of The Italian Job. It's a bold, brave finale - in a way I would have preferred a slightly more rounded end, but the film is too daring for that, instead setting things up for Avengers 4 perfectly (even in the post-credits scene).

Considering there are over 30 characters the audience will recognise, the directors and writers have done an excellent job of balancing the characters, all seen through the structure of the film itself. Structured more like an episode of Game of Thrones, we follow different groups of characters as the climax slowly comes to a head. One moment we'll be with Iron Man, Dr Strange and Spider-Man, the next we're journeying across the galaxy with Thor and the Guardians, and next we find ourselves with Cap, Falcon and Black Widow. No character seems particularly side-lined or unimportant and the structure allows for each and every character to make a solid contribution and get their fair share of screen-time.

Whereas Age of Ultron had more of an emphasis on story rather than characters, Infinity War is the complete opposite, the characters coming together instead being the main point of the film itself. It's a relief then that, besides all characters having a fair amount of time, they are all fantastic and an absolute joy to see all together in one film, every group seeping excellent chemistry. It never feels forced or gimmicky, but instead authentic and natural to see them all team up and work together. It also emphasises how perfectly cast all the characters have been over the years, able to hold their own and interact with everyone else so brilliantly. With so many characters, a film like this shouldn't work, but incredibly it does and is all the better for it. None of the groups are ever the default boring one (unlike Frodo and Sam in Lord of the Rings), but they are all lovable characters with exciting plot lines. On top of that they're all hilarious. As ever, Drax might be the funniest; but there are jokes from Stark, Strange, Quill, Groot, Rogers, Okoye... the list is endless. In a film with so much heart and action, it's amazing they managed to fit in so much comedy. It's beginning to sound like a cliché, but this is absolutely the funniest Marvel film yet - certainly funnier than the majority of "comedies" that come out these days. Even the new character Eitri played by Game of Thrones' Peter Dinklage gets his share of laughs. The biggest surprise with regards to characters however is Thanos. While his cohort may be formidable yet fairly bland (with the exception of the brutally sinister and downright scary Ebony Maw, played by Tom Vaughan-Lawlor), Infinity War's central villain Thanos is an exceptional antagonist, brilliantly played by Josh Brolin. As terrifying and intimidating as the monstrous purple alien may be, there is a quiet, emotional side to him. Unlike many villains, he's not looking for power for the sake of power. There's an element of humanity to him and he genuinely believes that what he's doing is for the good of the universe. This is not an antagonist to add to the ever-growing annals of forgettable villains - Thanos is the formidable foe we needed and wanted. No longer will Loki be the best Marvel bad guy by default. Will he go down as the best superhero villain since the Joker?

Of course it's not all laughs and chasing stones. As expected in a film like this there's action - lots of action. It's appropriate that the word 'war' appears in the title since this is by far the most action-packed Marvel film we've seen. Despite the nigh-on non-stop action, it never gets boring or seems like too much. With a rich plethora of characters comes a wide variety of action and fighting styles. No two characters fight in the same way and so the action always seems fresh. It's a pleasure seeing all these characters we have grown to love come together and fight with one another. The CGI and fight choreographing is incredible and the battle scenes are beautifully filmed. Definitely worthwhile being seen in IMAX!

The biggest downside is having to wait a year to find out what happens next, with no clues in the upcoming Ant-Man and the Wasp or Captain Marvel in the interim (since they're set before the events of this film). Still, if the next Avengers film is anything like Infinity War we're in for another incredible treat. With terrific character interaction, hilarious comedy, sublime action and a shocking ending that will keep you awake at night - it's all perfect. The 10 years Marvel has spent leading up to this has been absolutely worth it. A splendid and monumental achievement. All hail Marvel - but beware, Thanos will return...

TL;DR

• Absolutely English and proud to be so

• Easy-going but enjoyable enough story

• A little too long and the mystery can sometimes be a little underwhelming

• Predictable plot

• Heart-warming characters and solid performances

• Ultimately unremarkable, but perfectly pleasant

--------------------------

There's a strange genre that seems to have been around for a few decades now. Some may call them comedy, drama, romance... though usually they incorporate genre tropes from all three. Yet the most common element that runs through them all is that they are 1.) sweet, 2.) able to be enjoyed universally and 3.) unequivocally English - with the crème-de-la-crème of British thespians and, quite often, set during WWII. The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (no, the title doesn't get easier to say the more you try) absolutely fits alongside those types of films being lovely in every sense (though sometimes a bit too lovely) with a pleasant story and great cast. Still, there's nothing special or unique about the film itself that allows it go above and beyond the existing classics.

It's an easy-going, yet interesting story that effortlessly commands an audience. On the other hand, however, it takes a while for the story to get going, eventually exacerbating the other issue of the film being too long for what it is (ideally a film such as this would run in between 90 to 105 minutes). On top of this, the plot is fairly predictable; it's not too challenging to guess the ending before even the half-way mark. Still, it balances the stories of Juliet's relationships with the hunt for Elizabeth well, making the film part mystery - although it is admittedly a shame that most revelations concerning Elizabeth's eventual disappearance rarely seem like ground-breaking discoveries. Still, it's an enjoyable story, but this is mainly down to the characters who make it up.

The real joy of the characters is not only watching them open up to Juliet and slowly tell her the story of Elizabeth's disappearance piece by piece, but by getting to know them and seeing their personalities unfold before us. This is strengthened by solid performances of heart-warming, well-written characters. Even the more secondary characters aren't glossed over and make genuine contributions to the film. From Goode's the paternal publisher to the smarmy Powell's American boyfriend, able to carefully tread the line between being simultaneously charming and repulsive. The group of society members themselves are the ones at the very heart of the film itself. These characters are the highlight of the movie, each of them unique and individual, able to portray the connection between the characters in what they do and say. Lily James once again proves to be a wonderful lead, charismatic and lovely to watch.

It's difficult to predict a Mike Newell film when he's so diverse; from directing the likes of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire to Four Weddings and a Funeral, there isn't anything specific we can expect from him, other than he has the ability to craft entertaining and enjoyable films - though nothing quite as iconic since Four Weddings. The story and writing are enjoyable and the cast really sell it; while it may be ultimately unremarkable, it's nevertheless perfectly pleasant. An ideal film to watch with your feet up on a lazy Sunday afternoon with the whole family.

TL;DR

• A unique horror film; mature and well-filmed without copious amounts of gore and cheap jump scares

• Engaging horror concept

• Simple story with family at its core

• Exceptional use of sound

• Not scary, but very tense and suspenseful

• Well-acted considering lack of lines

-------------------------------

The horror genre is a tricky one to get right. All too often horror films are sub-par, a sick parody of its own genre, pandering to the lowest common denominator with copious and unnecessary amounts of gore and cheap, poorly filmed jump-scares - not to mention the countless sequels (how many Saw and Friday 13th films are there now?). Sad as that may be, there is a silver lining; namely, in a genre saturated with bad films, whenever there is a genuinely decent, different one, it gets the appropriate attention and praise it deserves. Recently we got Get Out - a different, unique horror film that audiences and critics alike adored, partly due to its strength and partly because it stood out in an otherwise iffy genre. Now we have A Quiet Place - while it may be wildly different to Get Out (in terms of plot and scares to name just a few), it is comparable in how it seems to have made a splash, bringing in a large audience and receiving universal praise and adoration. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that we haven't seen suspense like this in a film since the Master of Suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock.

The story itself is very simple with its core concept being the main driving force. While it may not be the most original concept (monsters in videogames love being blind but sensitive to sound; from Until Dawn to the clickers in The Last of Us), it's done exceptionally well and completely sells the concept to the audience with its commitment being absolute. The first part of the film is noteworthy for its detail, showing us the fascinating intricate workings of a life spent in total silence, each and every character consistently tense and aware, waiting for things to go wrong. And, as is inevitable in a horror film, when things do eventually go wrong, it's incredible how tense and exciting the climactic final act is. It may not be scary, but it's hard to think of many films that have mastered suspense and tension like this.

The use of sound is exceptional and really well done. It's almost a shame it didn't come out sooner; at least an Oscar nomination would have been likely. This is proof that cinema is not just a visual medium and that what we hear can be just as potent as what we see. If anything, hearing but not seeing is sometimes more powerful, raising tension and letting our imagination do the work. From foley to music, the sound (or occasionally the lack of) is the main 'character' and reason for seeing the film, making it so unique. The music from Marco Beltrami in particular is worthy of note, always quiet and understated, used to punctuate the film well, make it more dramatic, but never detracting from the power of silence. Still, with sound and silence being so important, it's tricky to know how to recommend watching this film; you really do need the immersion that a cinema provides, but there's no feasible way to control coughs, sniffs and the noisiest culprit of all, popcorn. Maybe it's best to win the lottery and have you own private home cinema.

The cast does a decent job considering the remarkable lack of lines, relying instead on complete physical acting. This is particularly impressive for relative newcomer Millicent Simmonds and another excellent title to put on Noah Jupe's filmography. The chemistry between real-life couple Emily Blunt and John Krasinski comes through and helps strengthen their on-screen relationship with a strong, believable romance. The only issue is, without many lines, it's difficult to craft unique, special characters and to know them intimately. But the tension between Regan and Lee is the aspect that stands out best, really selling the central theme of family.

A Quiet Place is a special, unique horror that shows what can be achieved by this genre when it's not pandering to the lowest common denominator. With an engaging concept and impressive physical acting by the cast, it's a small, intimate film with huge tension. Hitchcock may have been the master of suspense, but sound hasn't been used this strongly before. Is this the year's best horror already?

TL;DR

• The first actually half-decent videogame movie
• Inspired by the game, more than just a copy of the story
• Some original additions refresh the story for those who have played the game
• Other original additions feel more like Indiana Jones rip-offs
• Action is enjoyable and well-done (unlike many other videogame movies)
• Vikander is a great Lara Croft
• The villain is a bit too bland

----------------------------------------

Videogame movies are always bad. It's a classic rule that people have picked up on over the last 20 years or so. Sometimes the story doesn't necessarily translate well to the big screen; they try to be too faithful an adaptation; the action just doesn't work when you're a passive consumer; or they're just badly made films, created solely for easy money. Nevertheless, there was a certain excitement for Tomb Raider, and with every passing trailer and poster, there seemed to be a glimmer of hope. 'Would this be the first actually decent videogame movie?' we all asked. So does it break the trend? Fortunately, on the whole, yes - this is the first videogame movie that isn't bad. It's still far from the quality of the game on which it's based, but there's lots to enjoy and celebrate. Largely because, unlike tragic videogame movies before, Tomb Raider is not pretending to be the game.

The story itself isn't necessarily a direct adaptation from the 2013 reboot Tomb Raider. Instead the Tomb Raider film takes inspiration from the game and bases the story on its ideas, but the story itself is not identical. This difference is a double-edged sword with both positive and negative results. On one hand, the beginning of the film gives more personality to Lara's character, allowing us to delve deeper into her backstory than the game. It gives us more time to learn who Lara is before she sets off on her adventure and this is a strong point of the film. Other differences are particularly worthwhile since they make the film's story much more interesting for those who have already completed the game, even to 100% completion (humble-brag). Even Himiko, the Macguffin herself, is different, keeping the whole movie fresh.

On the other hand, however, there are parts of Tomb Raider that come across more as references to its source game, such as the plane and parachute sequence. Still, these are still enjoyable moments. One larger issue that derives from deviating from the original story though is that some "original" elements of the plot instead come straight from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; there's an argument about not burning a diary with notes in; there's a scene in which tiles from the ground fall, letting the victims fall to their death. Minor issues aside, the plot overall works well. It's a typical action-adventure with a macguffin or two at its centre - but I love those stories, growing up on a diet of Tintin and Indiana Jones. The biggest criticism regarding the story is the shameless setting up of a sequel; at least that's only in the final few minutes though.

The Lara Croft games however were never intended to be primarily about story - they were for action; be it combat, gymnastics or endless wall-climbing, pole-swinging and jumping. As it goes, the action in the Tomb Raider film is better than we've come to expect from videogame movies. So many have silly action scenes trying too hard to replicate the gameplay, adding in some cinematic slow-mo to make it seem like a spectacle but ending up making it ridiculous and laughable. Here though the action it totally fit for film and is done well. There are still action-oriented elements taken directly from the game that stand out somewhat, but not as drastically as you might think; scaling cliff walls, frantically climbing up a crumbling wall with a climbing axe, convenient 'monkey bars' falling into place when trying to escape a capsizing ship. Though originating from the game, they don't feel too out of place in the film.

Alicia Vikander makes a very good Lara Croft all in all. As you'd hope from an Oscar-winning actress, she lends some more believability to the character and makes her consistently likable. It laughs at the awful Angelina Jolie films; there's just no comparison. Although fierce and independent, there's an innocent streak to her in the beginning that soon becomes a hardened, steely determination. More than that, like the reboot game itself, Vikander doesn't need to strip down to a scanty costume - she's a beauty with brains and that makes her all the stronger. She's certainly the star of the film, but there's a decent supporting cast with her father and Lu Ren, but it's a shame not enough was given to Goggins' antagonist. His performance is charismatic and enigmatic enough for him to be a competent villain, but there's nothing special and memorable about him, other than a fairly comical name.

On the face of it, Tomb Raider isn't ground-breaking stuff. It's a competent, enjoyable enough blockbuster; a decent popcorn flick, but still hasn't got anything on the likes of Indiana Jones. Still, this is the first time a movie based on a videogame hasn't been flat out bad - so perhaps there's more to praise here than you may think. And judging by the end, a sequel will soon be on the horizon. Let's hope Lara can hit an even bigger target next time out.

TL;DR

• Writer-director Greta Gerwig impresses with directorial debut
• Refreshingly original and unique
• Witty, funny script with enjoyable subplots and lots of laughs
• Great strong characters with career-best performances
• Laurie Metcalf and Saoirse Ronan are fantastic, individually and together

------------------------------------------------------

On the face of it, Lady Bird is nothing new; we've seen coming-of-age/self-discovery teen films countless times before. Sometime's they're great, sometimes they're god awful. Somehow though Lady Bird manages to buck this trend and stand out as being refreshingly original and not quite like your average coming-of-age/self-discovery teen film - especially impressive for a directorial debut!

It could be very easy for a story charting a year in the life of a narcissistic teenager to be annoying, childish or perhaps even patronising. Lady Bird is none of those, but rather as charming as its protagonist, mature and even understanding. While the main plot of the story is Lady Bird's determination to make it to East Coast colleges, there are so many subplots that emerge in her life that are a joy to be distracted by. We can all identify with these milestones, from first love to falling out with a friend, but these milestones are enjoyable to revisit with a character like Lady Bird and with such witty, quick writing that really captivates the voice of a frustrated teenager. Much of this is down to the excellent script by writer-director Greta Gerwig, in which strong characters are created and from which a plethora of funny, quotable lines come, making you question if it's more a drama or comedy. Gerwig also emphasises an interesting sense of nostalgia, setting the story in the recent past (2002). Not so far gone as to require frequent nods to the culture of the period, instead we feel as if we're transported back in time in a more subtle way, feeling younger just being able to see those beefy computer monitors.

The film certainly belongs to its star, but Ronan isn't the only decent cast member. The supporting cast is great, from boyfriends to best friends, each is different and not just a cliched depiction of teenage archetypes, but rather come across as genuine. The real stars of the show though are Laurie Metcalf and Saoirse Ronan, with the relationship between their characters being the real crux of the whole film. Metcalf is probably best known as Sheldon's ultra-religious Texan mother in The Big Bang Theory, but that's likely to be overshadowed now. Really showing us what she can do, she may still play a mother with a strong personality, but instead Lady Bird allows Metcalf to give a more nuanced, understated performance, making her a much more realistic, complicated character with whom audiences can instantly engage and form various opinions. Saoirse Ronan has been around for ages, first breaking through as Briony in Atonement way back in 2007 at just 13 years old. She's been in lots since, impressing time and again, particularly in Brooklyn. It's as Lady Bird though that we really see Ronan at her best. Were those lines to be spoken by someone else, Christine could be a thoroughly unlikable character and the film might not have worked. Instead, with Christine played by Ronan, she's well-developed, delightfully complex and consistently likeable, despite her penchant for being frequently narcissistic and frustrating. She's a teenage character we can't help but love and enjoy discovering who she is at the same time she does, sharing in both joy and heartbreak from stat to finish.

Sadly Lady Bird may not have won any Academy Awards, but it certainly deserved each of the five nominations. With a witty, funny script, Gerwig delivers on an impressive directorial debut with excellent performances from Metcalf and Ronan. A hilarious and touching coming-of-age film, ripe with nostalgia, laughs, self-discovery and great characters, Lady Bird flies high.

TL;DR

• Defines stereotypical demographics; enjoyable for anyone and everyone
• Sweet, emotional and identifiable story
• Lots of laughs
• Lovable characters played well by an all-star British cast

------------------------------

Some films often appeal to a certain demographic; from CGI-heavy blockbusters to teary rom-coms, every film has a specific stereotypical demographic. Finding Your Feet, for example, at first glance perhaps seems like a film aimed towards the conservative over-60s population of the UK. With the occasional ever so slightly racy, Carry On-esque sex jokes, simple but sweet plot, and an all-star cast of familiar British actors who have been delighting us on-screen for many years, it ticks all the boxes that grandparents round the country want a film to tick. However, the biggest surprise this film has in store is how excellent it is regardless of demographic. Quite simply, no matter your interests or demographic, there's no denying the charm of this film and how enjoyable it is.

It's a simple story, but an effective one, never dragging in pace and always keeping our interest, all the while giving everyone at least something to identify with on some level. All in all, Finding Your Feet is absolutely a feel-good film. However, that doesn't mean it's all sunshine and rainbows. On the contrary, there are some heart-breaking moments which can tease a tear from most stoic of viewers. Not only do these help us identify even more, but they make the characters feel more real and the highs and laughs seem just that much more enjoyable. And as for laughs there are plenty. You'll definitely find yourself laughing more than crying, with a plethora of comic moments you could find yourself chuckling at even during repeated viewings.

All the laughs and feel-good feelings stem as much from the cast as they do from the script though. The only downside is how underused a comedy legend and icon like Joanna Lumley is. Still, like David Hayman also with a smaller part, they make the most of what they have and make an impact on the film, giving it a broader personality and still making you love the characters. Celia Imrie, Timothy Spall and Imelda Staunton are the trio at the heart of the film and all the sweetness emanates from them. With Bif's lust for life, Imrie makes the film inspirational; Spall fortunately breaks his typecasting, this time not being a Pettigrew-esque repulsive character, and instead playing perhaps the sweetest character in the film, almost single-handedly bringing all its emotion with him; and Staunton's development of her character leads the film in a charming way, constantly likable and winning the audience over even before her character begins to change.

It may be lost among all the Oscar nominated films dominating cinemas at the moment, but Finding Your Feet is a fresh alternative that can't fail to please. Endlessly charming, an excellent cast brings a sweet, emotional story with plenty of good laughs and a few memorable lines. You'll be hunting for decent croissants in Surrey for years to come.

TL;DR

• One of the year's strongest biopics
• Narrow scope works very well, focusing on just a month and so giving so much detail
• Informative and enjoyable
• Excellent performances from the supporting cast
• Brilliant set decoration, cinematography and direction
• Witty, well-paced writing, though occasionally heavy and exhausting
• The Oscar is absolutely deserved for Oldman (and the make-up) - an incredible performance

----------------------------------

Every year it seems we can expect at least one Oscar-nominated film recounting the life of a historical figure (this year we have two, Darkest Hour and I, Tonya). These aren't confined to one season, however, and there are numerous biopics coming out all the time. Not all of these are a hit, many being critically panned. However some biopics lauded, both by critics and audiences alike; Darkest Hour is one of these films, instantly becoming an example for the biopic genre in general, largely due to its focus, managing to mix story, struggles, history and personality seamlessly.

While many biopics try (often in vain) to chart the life of a great figure from birth to death, Darkest Hour instead narrows its scope to a crucial, captivating month in the life of its protagonist. Churchill is a fascinating character and to tell the whole story of his life in just one film is too big a challenge to really do the man justice. Instead we go on an often intimate journey with him and his early struggles, many of which a great deal of the audience will not be aware of. Personally I had no idea that Churchill experience so much criticism and doubt even by members of his own party. Since there's a lot of history to learn as we watch, heavy expositionary dialogue is almost inevitable. At times such intense and heavy conversations packed full of information can become exhausting and one might find their mind wondering slightly, in need of some light relief. This relief isn't provided often, but that's not to say the film is devoid of comedy. In fact, Oldman's performance of Churchill himself gives us a great deal of comedy to lighten the tone and really improve the overall personality of the film. Still, even when there's a lot of serious discussions going on, it's never dull and always well-written, not getting too bogged down in the dreary and unnecessary details. The moments when we see the full personality of Churchill come through is when the film shines and Anthony McCarten's script perfectly captures the image of the man about whom we hear so many stories. However this is mostly down to Gary Oldman.

Oldman is certainly the heart and soul of Darkest Hour. Even if we were to forget the make-up, his performance is outstanding; but with the Academy Award-winning make-up it's incredible how he is transformed and how successfully he embodies Churchill and brings him to life before our very eyes. This is all best seen in a scene that probably never happened in real life - Churchill heads on into the London Underground by himself, astonishing the passengers and chatting with them all. This is Oldman's Oscar-winning performance at its finest; story is temporarily forgotten, and it's an absolute to joy to watch him just be that character, disbelief absolutely suspended, either willingly or unwillingly. Though Gary Oldman certainly seizes the film, the supporting cast support very well. Mendelsohn takes a different approach to King George than Colin Firth, making this character seem more his own, and Pickup and Dillane are perfect as stuffy politicians. Yet it's Scott Thomas and James that are the strongest in the supporting cast, giving both Churchill and the film a strong, kind and womanly touch that the overly male-dominated film needs.

Director Joe Wright and director of photography Bruno Delbonnel also include gorgeous aesthetics. The set decoration is sublime, fully immersing us into a WWII London and letting it come to life. More than this, it's all shot beautifully and sometimes theatrically, with some of its cinematography inspiring. These all come together to strongly emphasise either the isolation or the triumph Churchill feels at different points throughout his story.

It's obvious from all the talk and even the poster that this is Gary Oldman's film. It's important to remember though that there's so much more to enjoy and applaud. With excellent writing, directing and cinematography, an emotional and realistic WWII London is brought to life, supported by an excellent cast. This is all topped off by an incredibly transformed Gary Oldman, fully evoking Churchill and giving us the performance of a lifetime. A big V for Victory!

TL;DR

• Bleak, depressing atmosphere adds to the film's mature, engaging personality
• Some aspects don't feel fully explored
• Lots of sex and violence (see that as good or bad depending on your own sensibilities...)
• Captivating plot that keeps us guessing
• Frequent fake Russian accents tend to get a bit irritating
• Decent performances all round, especially by Lawrence, continuing to demonstrate strong screen presence
• A competent, decent enough spy thriller - but nothing overly memorable

-----------------------------------------

As I've often said, the 'spy' genre is only ever a sub-genre; a secondary genre describing the story told in either an action film or a thriller (the distinction often seen by whether they're referred to as agents or spies). For this reason there are only really two types of spy films; some are like Bond films or Kingsman, others more like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Red Sparrow fits safely into the latter category, the sort of film that acts more as a warning as opposed to glamorising the life of a spy. With less reliance on action and style (but with plenty of sex and violence), it follows the trend with an intricate and clever plot that engages the audience. On the whole, Red Sparrow is successful, though not without its hiccups.

As is typical (and fundamentally important) with these 'realistic' spy movies, the whole film is very bleak and depressing; from the story and characters to the settings and cinematography. This feeling permeates Red Sparrow and the melancholic atmosphere works really well, confidently giving us an insight into the mind of a spy. However, sometimes it goes a little too far - the 'Sparrow School' section of the film, for example, was more disappointing. What could have been really exciting and interesting, instead seems more of an excuse for more of that nudity we're promised in the parental guide. And there are plenty of scenes with sex and nudity and more than enough violence to amp up the bleak, horrific nature of a spy's world - it's certainly not a film for prudes. Fortunately though these scenes aren't shoved in just to appeal to the sadists in the audience, but do contribute to the overall plot, one which is very intricate and complex. It can feel slow at times, but moves at a reasonable pace with enough twists and mystery to keep an audience engaged and always guessing all the way to the end.

All of this is lead confidently by a wonderful Jennifer Lawrence, who uses this film to once again remind us of her star power and excellent screen presence. With an understated performance, Lawrence develops her character brilliantly throughout the film, the cold-hearted spy we see at the end of the film very different from the ballerina at the start. What she really excels at, however, is an enigmatic expression and delivery of lines, succeeding in never allowing the audience to really know what she's thinking or who's side she's really on. Opposite her stars Joel Edgerton. A charismatic and likeable FBI agent, he's a more refreshing and believable take on a spy than some we've grown accustomed to on the screen. Rampling and Irons are also valuable assets to the cast, their stony faces and harsh words having a powerful effect on the characters and film itself. On the other hand, though, there are times when the characters seem a little too bland; there seems to be a lack of deep characterisation which results in less sympathy from the audience. On top of that, the fake Russian accents soon run really thin. While they're thankfully consistent, they are also strong and frequent enough to quickly become a tad annoying. You can't help but wish either they'd spoken in Russian (although a typical audience doesn't have the attention span to read subtitles) or just forgone the accent altogether.

Red Sparrow is unlikely to rank among the best of spy films and it seems at this stage somewhat unlikely that it will spawn the lucrative franchise that they seem to want. With slightly irritating Russian accents, an occasionally slow-moving plot and not much more than superficial characterisation, it's unlikely to stand proudly with the likes of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. But with an engagingly bleak atmosphere, exciting plot that keeps your interest and Lawrence leading the way, Red Sparrow makes up for its flaws and reminds us how enjoyable these kinds of spy films can be.

TL;DR

• Unique style makes it personal and stand out
• Great soundtrack
• Goodfellas vibe to the whole thing
• Tracks a lot of Tonya's life but the focus narrows in on "the incident", improving structure
• Phenomenal performances, particularly Margot Robbie and Allison Janney in particular

-------------------------------------------------

You have to admit, I, Tonya came out at a pretty perfect time; with the Oscars just around the corner and the Winter Olympics in full swing, Margot Robbie's latest ticks both boxes with a film about ice skating worthy of its three Academy Award nominations. Bringing a sporting legend to life, I, Tonya is a well-made, strangely captivating film.

The style chosen by director Craig Gillespie and writer Steven Rogers is a unique, interesting one and works very well. Starting from her childhood and tracking her life up until the present (more or less), it's absolutely a biopic, but it's given a dash of personality and realism by occasionally having the style of a documentary, with the actors recreating the real-life interviews and the editing cutting the talking-heads to fit in seamlessly with the rest of the film - the nomination for editing is well-deserved. Having the actors break the fourth wall and talk to the audience, both in the talking heads and fitting into the action, makes the story seem a lot more personal and works well, also fitting with Tonya's rebellious persona. In fact the constant personal narration (along with the fantastic soundtrack) gives off a strong Goodfellas vibe that works well.

Most of the film is about the characters though, the latter half specifically being about how they react and handle the aftermath of "the incident". The cast are all wonderful, without a weak link. Even the comic relief in Paul Walter Hauser doesn't detract from the film's tone and is used in moderation to lighten things up. It's especially refreshing to see Sebastian Stan flex his acting talents more than we often see him in the Marvel films, with his Bucky character relegated to just brooding and not giving off much of a character. Here however he's given a chance to deliver a well-rounded, complex performance, playing a character we really shouldn't like, but Stan makes the pathetic and aggressive Jeff almost sympathetic. This complex performance extends especially to the Oscar nominated performances by Margot Robbie and Allison Janney. Robbie makes a wonderful lead, fully embracing the "bad-girl" persona of Tonya Harding, while still making her empathetic and likeable. With such a charismatic, intricate performance, it's not surprising she's been nominated. Janney in particular is one of the most interesting characters though, easily stealing every scene she's in and really making the part her own. It would be so easy for her character to be seen as an abusive villain, but instead she makes her more complex than that. Like with all the characters, Janney's excellent performance portrays her character as neither good nor bad, neither likeable nor unlikable. She's a flawed person and is perhaps the best thing in the film.

I, Tonya is nothing if not refreshing; a uniquely styled biopic which breaks the fourth wall, is effortlessly entertaining and captivates audiences worldwide with flawless performances of very flawed characters. This one easily steals a gold medal.

TL;DR:

• Phenomenal style - sound and visuals bring this vivid world to life
• Beautifully shot
• Thematically rich
• Wonderful performances, particularly by Sally Hawkins
• An instant classic, one that will improve with every watch

------------------------------------------------

Guillermo del Toro isn't a new director by any means; an expert and renounced filmmaker, he already has a few masterpieces under his belt (such as Pan's Labyrinth) along with a few blockbusters (like Hellboy or Pacific Rim). Now he's back with his first film since Crimson Peak in 2015...and it's wonderful, as good as Pan's Labyrinth, if not better. A modern reselling of a classic Beauty and the Beast-esque tale, Shape of Water is an instant classic, a fairytale film with a dreamlike quality about love, humanity and so much more.

The first thing to notice in this film is the style, one that Del Toro absolutely commits to and makes exceptional. It's a beautifully romanticised view of the 1960s, with a wonderful soundtrack and exquisite set design. Imagine Bioshock with a love story. From sound to visuals, the style is unique and breathtaking, absolutely sucking you into a dreamlike world absolutely fit for a 'fairytale' such as this. Even monotonous parts of Sally's life are shot beautifully and Del Toro proves to us once again what he's capable of directing.

However it's still Del Toro and anyone who's seen one of his films, from Pan's Labyrinth to Crimson Peak, knows that he has a penchant for the weird and wacky. Weird and wacky in this case though has never been so beautiful and emotional. Straddling themes of love, politics and what is is to be human, this is a film that will no doubt be studied and loved for years to come, with it improving with each viewing.

Taking just the story and way it's filmed alone it's a wonderful film already; but it's the cast that make it that much more magical. Michael Shannon often plays the bad guy, but there's a reason for this typecast - he's perfect as it. He doesn't necessarily need to shout; with just a look and a mumble, he crafts an intimidating, unpredictable character that poses as an ominous threat throughout. Octavia Spencer is another one typecast, often playing a sassy lady who's prejudiced against (in this case by Shannon's character, believing himself to be God and everyone else, Spencer's character specifically, to be below him), yet she effortlessly excels in this role and is the perfect friend to Elisa. On the other side is Elisa's other friend, Giles. His friendly, but timid character grounds a film with so much craziness and lends some much needed comic relief; sweet and lovely as the film maybe, it's not a light, easy-going comedy. Zelda and Giles are the perfect friends for Elisa, one being black, the other gay, they understand her struggle as a mute and not being able to fit in with a prejudiced world. This is a struggle personified further in the Amphibian Man, animated wonderfully with terrifyingly realistic gills and colourful scales. Straddling the boundary between animal and man, Doug Jones physical performance really sells the character and the theme it represents. The real star of the cast, however, is Sally Hawkins. With next to no lines at all, her performance is stand out. We fall in love with her without her needing to say a word, similarly to the Amphibian Man. It's this similarity which really brings them together, but it's her performance which stands out the most. With every emotion and thought showing on her face, we feel strongly for this character, sympathising her with every step. Never quite given a chance to shine before, it's wonderful to see what Hawkins can do, able to command such screen presence without a voice and to show her character's struggle vividly.

The Shape of Water is an incredible, beautiful and sweet film that will touch the hearts of moviegoers worldwide. A cautionary tale with a plethora of themes and messages that anyone can identify with, this will be a beloved classic, loved more and more with every re-watch. A magical, fairytale that deserves each of its 13 Oscar nominations. It may not win them all, but it certainly deserves the recognition and praise. A masterpiece and an instant classic.

TL;DR

• Thin, boring plot strung together by uninteresting and unnecessary scenes
• Strangely placed and unsexy sex scenes, with nearly no BDSM (the initial draw)
• Iffy acting and bad writing compliment each other
• An underwhelming 'climax'

--------------------------

It wasn't too long ago that the Fifty Shades of Grey was a common subject of conversation (and subject to much ridicule). Originally written as fan-fiction to Twilight, it became a pop icon and made a huge impact - at least that's what it seemed to be at the time. Still, as with many initially popular things, it proved to be just a fad; a graphic gimmick that soon lost its novelty. At first a graphic, poorly-written book, then a graphic, poorly-made film, the Fifty Shades series was ripe for laughter and fun (even though most of the fun was laughing at how awful it was). This was a single joke however, one that wore thin by the second film (and second book). Still, people don't like giving up too easily, and somehow these films have profited enough to warrant the third and final film - its 'climax' as the tag line jokes. So does this film give us a climax to end on a high?

It's difficult to recount much of the plot since it's absolutely not the top priority (then again, it's tough to tell what any priorities were). It's largely a few weak plot points that somehow culminate in an underwhelming thriller-esque climax. Of course all these plot points are strung together by dull conversations and embarrassingly awkward sex scenes that seem forced and just shoved in as an after-thought - almost as if they made the whole film and only realised at the end that it was Fifty Shades and they need some sex somewhere.

God knows what happened to the BDSM either. Other than one very tame and brief scene, it's almost no where to be seen. Softcore has never been so soft. Not that I'd have enjoyed it with more hard sex scenes, but since that's the initial draw for the audience, they ought to feel fairly cheated that the film really doesn't deliver on its promise. As beautiful as Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan are, their sex scenes together are rarely sexy. Not even the circumstances in which they get it on are sexy; whereas porn finds turn-ons in plumbing and pizza delivery, Fifty Shades Freed finds turn-ons in eye-rolling and ice cream.

It's a shame also that the characters of Christian and Ana are so bland. This isn't to say that it's all down to the failings of the actors; Johnson and Dornan have certainly proved their talents, but in other projects. Perhaps the fault instead lies at the director James Foley and writer Niall Leonard, for having an uninteresting story with blandly drawn characters. Still, it was always going to be a challenge considering from where they had to draw their material. The cringey acting compliments the bad script, both proving awkward and dull.

Fifty Shades Freed is just about as bad as you would expect. With a lacklustre story, poorly drawn characters, sluggishly slow pace and unsexy, forced sex scenes, it doesn't matter how attractive the leads are or how funny it all is, this is just proof that sometimes fan-fiction should just remain fan-fiction.

TL;DR

• Stunning aesthetics
• Commitment to African culture and Afrofuturism is wonderful with terrific results
• A very colourful film
• A refreshingly different feel for a superhero film
• Exciting, fast-paced and varied action
• As much comedy as you'd hope from a Marvel movie
• Great performances with a strong supporting cast and one of Marvel's most compelling villains

Black Panther is a special film in a number of ways. Not only is it the 18th Marvel film and the last one before the big third outing for the Avengers, but it's big for black culture and Afrofuturism, being the first big blockbuster superhero film featuring a black lead and, more importantly, a nearly all black cast (and crew). It's a step in the right direction for an increasingly out-dated and politically incorrect Hollywood, with arrogant 'white males' quivering in their seats. More than this, Black Panther is an incredible movie, more than a worthy addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The aesthetics are inspiring, every inch of Wakanda utterly African, each scene evoking a strong and exemplary sense of Afrofuturism. Black Panther is absolutely committed to the African cultures it portrays and the effect is not only different, but visually stunning and incredibly colourful. More importantly, it never feels forced, gimmicky or frequently mentioned, constantly reminding people how PC they are. Instead the blend of African cultures embodied in Wakanda feels natural and organic and its detail is wonderful at every level.

In fact the aesthetics throughout the whole film are gorgeous. CGI, as expected in a film of this calibre, is second-to-none, but the cinematography alongside really captures the beauty of Wakanda, the wonders of a fictional technologically-advanced African country brought to life. Wakanda, stunning as it is, also feels fresh; Black Panther isn't just another superhero film with the titular character fighting their way across New York City. This freshness stretches throughout the whole movie, making it seem like a new kind of superhero film and putting to rest any doubts that Marvel's films could become stale or repetitive.

It is a Marvel film though so there are some aspects that we come to expect; some that are welcome and some that are happily missing in this movie. One is the comedy, which is abundant throughout Black Panther. With plenty of laughs from beginning to end - coming from M'Baku (Winston Duke) and Shuri in particular - it helps in allowing Black Panther to fit effortlessly into the broader personality of the MCU. Origin stories are also expected in superhero films, but here that is forgone, something that adds to its strength. It never gets bogged down in origins or unnecessary details explaining comic book lore; instead, like with Spider-Man: Homecoming, it just gets going and tells us what we need to know as it goes, letting exposition fit neatly into the film and never letting it slow down the pace. Superhero action too is worthy of praise as it is some of the best we've seen yet. With multiple films of this genre coming out every year, it's understandably becoming difficult to impress an audience. However Black Panther has a slightly more fresh approach to its action; not too deep-rooted in unrealistic sci-fi/fantasy, the action is fast-paced, fun to watch and brilliantly choreographed with varied action. This latter point is largely down to Black Panther being almost an ensemble film. While the focus of the story and a lot of the action is on T'Challa, he's not the sole interest of the film. Instead we often see him fighting alongside Nakia, Okoye and even sometimes Shuri. Each with different personalities as well as fighting styles, this lends a varied approach to the fight scenes and make them so much more interesting to watch. Yet the highlight is still the titular Black Panther, with expert martial arts and gymnastics blending together to be an absolute joy.

The joy doesn't stop with the action though. The quiet times are sometimes just as much fun, with the cast clearly having a blast. Chadwick Boseman builds on his debut in Captain America: Civil War, still retaining the characterisation from that film, but expanding it and making us love this character even more. Wise, strong and determined, he makes a fine King for Wadanda; but funny, sweet and loyal, he makes a fine superhero for the MCU. Boseman excels at bringing out all sides of T'Challa and we can't wait to see more of him in later this year with the rest of the MCU by his side. By his side this time though are a fine group of characters who could maybe even give the Avengers a run for their money. Okoye has a harsh-edge to her and watching her fight is incredible, yet Danai Gurira gives us a soft edge that she only reveals occasionally, making her enigmatic character more appealing. Letitia Wright and Lupita Nyong'o too bring so much personality to the film, often stealing scenes from the titular hero himself. Michael B. Jordan makes a worthy antagonist, actually being one of Marvel's best villains yet. Since their history of villains hasn't been great to date, you could assume that that isn't too high an accolade, but despite that he is a sympathetic villain with a likeable, funny side - the sort of villainy that made us all love Loki - supported by fellow bad guy, Andy Serkis returning as Klaue. Though not appearing much, he certainly makes his mark and lives up to the character's reputation. Martin Freeman's return as Ross is also very welcome and never a gimmicky, unnecessary reference to the wider MCU; instead he is allowed to develop a part that was too small in Civil War. This time he fits in organically and his American accent is as impressive as Andy Serkis' South African.

It's safe to say that all the hype for Black Panther was worth it because it really is everything we wanted it to be. With exciting and varied non-stop action, plenty of comedy and an excellent ensemble of characters it fits into the rest of the Marvel cannon seamlessly. And while this one forgoes the sometimes unnecessary origin story, dives into a great plot and actually gives us an enjoyable villain, the best thing that stands out about Black Panther is how fresh it feels and looks and how committed it is to the inclusion of African culture and inclusivity. Yet again Marvel have delivered another outstanding film that instantly soars towards the top of the list.

TL;DR

• Conceptually engaging, but doesn't elaborate much
• Interesting to see what our world would be like if we integrated 'Downsizing' into our society
• Plot is thin and the slow pace makes it occasionally dull
• Pleasant, but obvious messages
• Likable cast and characters - Hong Chau in particular
• An easy watch, but forgettable

---------------------------

The idea behind Downsizing is an interesting one, a concept that can easily engage the imaginations of audiences worldwide. The trailer got popular for a while on the internet, with people really excited by an original idea that got them thinking - plus there was a decent cast. But director Alexander Payne's latest film doesn't quite live up to its thought-provoking premise, instead allowing the plot to go stale, the pace to drag on and not quite shaping up to size.

The basic concept of the film is what people come to see the movie for, despite the established talents of the cast and director. And whilst conceptually the film is strong, the story is not. Instead Downsizing moves from one aspect of the concept to another with a few weak narrative strings. This is largely because the plot is so thin once Paul decides to 'go small' that not much really happens, resulting in slowing the pace and sometimes erring towards the boring side. Although it takes too long for the 'downsizing' to actually happen, the first half is certainly the more interesting part; one where we actually get to see what would happen to our world if something like this was in fact discovered and integrated into society. Sadly we don't see enough of this though, which is a real shame as that was the real hook that brings an audience to the film. There are some pleasant messages to the film though; we should be saving the environment being one, we should pause and appreciate what we have now being another, but these have the habit of being a bit on the nose and obvious from time to time.

More than the concept, however, it's the characters within the concept that drive a film like this. Matt Damon obviously is a very capable and likable lead, though there's nothing overly special about his character to make him interesting or memorable, but Damon carries the film very well. The use of Kristen Wiig's character is too short-lived and they got rid of her as soon as it was convenient to the plot, proving to be a disappointment as Wiig certainly has the ability to lend a lot of comedy to a film, sometimes with just an expression. The real scene-stealers though are Christoph Waltz and Hong Chau. It seems strange for Waltz to be cast as a Serbian, rather than an Austrian or German, especially since it makes no difference since he plays a stereotypical European partyboy (as is too often a stereotype of Europeans in American films). Still, he's the life and soul of the scenes he's in (a trait he's proved ever since Landa in Inglourious Basterds) and makes the most of a character that is largely superfluous. The real surprise in the cast though is Hong Chau's Lan Tran. Hilariously bossy but somehow endearing from the word 'go', Chau stamps her personality on the film effortlessly and almost saves the latter half.

Downsizing is a small film that should have dreamed to be bigger than it is and be daring enough to really embrace its refreshingly original concept. Instead it goes from a conceptually captivating film to a fairly generic drama/quasi-comedy whose plot plods along, quickly forgetting the central premise that excited the audience. Certainly a pleasant watch, but a missed opportunity and far from Payne's excellent 2011 film, The Descendants.

TL;DR

• One of Pixar's absolute best
• Original, relatable and adorable story
• Beautifully animated with stunning visuals
• Genuine Mexican representation and a love-letter to its country
• Catchy tunes that will tug at your heartstrings

------------------------------------------

It seems strange, but I remember a simpler time when Pixar only had a few films under their belt; Toy Story (1 and 2), A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc. ... They quickly became famous for delivering outstanding films with excellent animation and a heart that appeal to adults as much as their intended audience, children. Now, releasing their 19th film, Coco, Pixar have built up such a strong reputation that their films can't fail to bring with them not only hype and excitement, but astronomically high expectations. Occasionally they trip up (the Cars series comes to mind...) but they've never made an outright bad film yet. So is Coco the one to stop their perfect run? Absolutely not - if anything, Coco shoots right up to the top Pixar films of all time, happily nestled among the best films (animated and otherwise) of all time.

As they've proved time and time again, Pixar can give one hell of an amazing, original story. Whether it's toys trying to return home, a fish finding his son or ants fighting for freedom, Pixar always manage to find a story that everyone can relate to in some way; a story where someone is searching for something important to them. Coco, yet again, gives us a relatable and universal story about music, family and self-discovery. More than this though, they deliver an original, creative story that's as entertaining as it is moving. Sweet and touching as we've come to expect, this film particularly focuses on the importance of family, acceptance and love embedded in an exciting story which never gets stale.

Of course it's impossible for it to get stale and for us to feel bored because the film's just too beautiful. Though now at the point where we rarely even acknowledge it, there are instances where we can see how advanced CGI has become. Coco is a perfect example of what can be done today, with stunning visuals and incredible attention to detail. It is one of the most gorgeously animated Pixar films, with as much detail and thought going into the 'real world' as there is in the eternally colourful Land of the Dead. The film absolutely sucks you in with a vivid world saturated with exquisite colour and designs.

Indeed, these would be nothing without the culture of its subject in the first place - Mexico, itself an extraordinarily colourful place. Pixar seem to have in a way dedicated this film as a love-letter to Mexico, its people and its culture. This is far from cultural appropriation some may have feared; instead everything here is utterly Mexican, somehow managing to disguise occasionally exposition-heavy dialogue and make learning fun. Even the language, though predominantly English, still includes many Spanish words, from the basics like 'gracias' to more specific words like 'ofrenda.' There aren't any token references to culture; instead Pixar have absolute commitment to the culture, something which is absolutely commendable. This extends even to the cast, all being ethnically appropriate with only the small exception of John Ratzenberger, Pixar's 'good-luck charm' who's in nearly every Pixar film somewhere.

One aspect not often celebrated in Pixar films is music. While Disney films are often animated musicals, Pixar films are usually just animated films, music confined just to the soundtrack. Instead, Coco places music front and centre along with family as its focus. Beside the gorgeously composed score from Michael Giacchino is music from the very talented Robert Lopez (one of the geniuses behind The Book of Mormon, a show packed with wonderful songs) and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, the couple who notably created those catchy and unforgettable songs from Frozen. Whilst there may be no 'Let It Go' in Coco (a relief to parents worldwide), 'Un Poco Loco' and, more than this, 'Remember Me,' are wonderful songs that will stay in your head and be sung as favourites for years to come. 'Remember Me' especially is the one song guilty to make you weep in your seat towards the end (make sure you watch this in 3-D - you need the glasses to hide those tears!)

It might seem like a daring move to make a 'children's' film about death - but, yet again, Pixar prove they can make a film about anything and still find a way to make it outstanding. With an original, sweet story, gorgeous visuals, wonderful music and genuine Mexican representation (a real middle finger up to Trump), Coco is a beautiful, magical film that can't fail to delight audiences worldwide - an absolute masterpiece. Bring some tissues, but get ready for one of your new favourite films.

TL;DR

• An instant classic

-Bleak, depressing but always hilarious in only the way McDonagh can be -Excellent script from McDonagh -Relevant, engaging story told at a perfect pace -Incredible performances from an A* cast -One of cinema's greatest cliffhanger endings ----------------------------

Take one look at the list of nominations this awards season and you'll see a long list of excellent films, but there's one with a strange title that stands out - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Not the sort of catchy title that studios often look out for, but writer-director Martin McDonagh is anything but ordinary, something this film certainly proves. In fact it's fortunate that the awards have picked this film up, since otherwise a film like this could have been lost. Instead, the awards buzz have given Three Billboards a certain hype. Combine that with the reputation McDonagh has gained from such excellent films as In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths (the former in particular being an all-time favourite of mine), does this film live up to the excitement? Absolutely yes. An incredible film with perfect performances and a first-class screenplay, McDonagh has given us a refreshing classic that's sure to be lauded over for years to come.

Strange as the story may seem, it's oddly captivating and by no means ever boring. Despite Mildred being the protagonist, we don't necessarily just take her side as the story encompasses a range of characters in the town; we see as much of Mildred as we do aggressive cop Dixon. The story really succeeds in challenging the audience's perspective and expectations. It doesn't require a big, Hollywood-style plot; instead it's small and intimate and is all the stronger for it. This allows for a more thorough and detailed look at the characters and the effects the story has on them, making it the sort of film we need today, particularly with countless stories of sexual harassment and racial attacks we hear in the news. It's a film with a story that implicitly challenges us to question our society and helps us perhaps to see some things in a new light. Add to that the best cliffhanger ending since The Italian Job (1969) and you have a story which sticks firmly in your mind.

Similar to In Bruges, another pro of its small story is that it allows the script to stand out, something very important in a McDonagh film. One of my favourite contemporary writers (his play The Pillowman is one of my absolute favourite plays), Three Billboards' script is perfectly exemplary of McDonagh's type of writing; bleak and depressing, but with plenty of dark humour peppered throughout, all the while thought provoking and challenging. More than this, his way of writing allows for strangely beautiful language, where profanity is just part of the poetry. The script is particularly good at balancing tension with constant comedy; you could be on the edge of your seat, waiting for something bad to happen, while laughing the entire time. It's a strange sense of unease that you bizarrely can't fail to enjoy.

As big a fan as I am of McDonagh, however, he can't take all the credit. The casting is first-class and each cast member is excellent. Presumably McDonagh's got a thing for 'little people' since Game of Thrones' Peter Dinklage takes over midget/dwarf duties, as opposed to Jordan Prentice's disgruntled actor in In Bruges. While not particularly important to the overall story, Dinklage's character's inclusion adds a nice bit of variety to the town's population and it's nice to see him play the opposite of Tyrion Lannister - mostly sober and a bit less successful with women. Still, he seemed a bit underused for such a successful actor at the moment. Abbie Cornish's Anne also doesn't seem to be given the screentime she deserves, but when her character's married to Harrelson's Willoughby, she's always going to be dwarfed by him. Harrelson is once again effortlessly likeable and 'cool' as the town's police chief, not becoming the antagonist you'd expect him to be. On the contrary, while you'd think we'd be on Mildred's side for the entire film, instead we find ourselves almost sympathising with Chief Willoughby more. Harrelson does an excellent job of balancing emotion and humour. Rockwell's Dixon is more arguably the 'antagonist' of the film if you need to apply the label somewhere, who again balances the humour in his character very well with his aggression and stupidity. He could easily have been a very detestable character, but Rockwell's portrayal is so charismatic and he progresses throughout the film's entirety to the point that our opinions and perceptions change. At the heart of the whole drama though, stony-faced and angry, is McDormand's Mildred. Playing fierce and fiery wonderfully, McDormand is the one who really sells the film and it's her character's personality that carries the film just as much as the script.

If you liked In Bruges, you'd certainly like this. If you like any film with wit and comedy, you'd like this. If you like films set in a microcosm which question and reflect on our own society, you'd like this. The only problem is that there's a shame there weren't five billboards to make a five-star pun... McDonagh solidifies his talent with his third consecutive great film, this one being his best yet. With an incredible script and a perfect cast, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is an instant classic, able to challenge an audience and make them laugh the whole time.

TL;DR

• Captivating plot, but starts to run out of steam in the second half
• Poker games are fun and exciting
• The script is perfect, with plenty of examples of witty, snappy dialogue
• Wonderful cast - particularly Elba and Chastain
• A promising directorial debut

---------------------------------

Much like Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin has come to be known for his writing; impressive, snappy dialogues that have a real impact, are clever and funny and certainly add to a film's quality. However, unlike Tarantino, he's not known for his directing - yet. Confined for the most part to screenwriting, Molly's Game signifies a first for Sorkin, letting him trying his hand at directing as well as writing, something many have hoped to see for some time. So how does his directorial debut fare? On the plus side, Molly's Game is an enjoyable, well-done film that sucks you in and gives you a captivating plot with the sort of snappy and detailed script we have come to expect from this master writer. Despite this, there's still not much that lets the film stand out and be special - as you might guess, Sorkin's script stands out the most. Still, this doesn't mean he should hang up the directing hat just yet, because there's plenty to enjoy in his debut.

The story is an intriguing one (especially since it's based on reality) and the writing emphasises this, really sucking you in from the beginning. But watching countless poker games and listening to complex legal jabber weighs the film down, making it run out of steam about halfway through. Though frequent, the poker games are exciting and rarely cease to be fun to watch, with Sorkin managing to make the tension on the table jump through the screen to the audience. This extends to other elements, particularly the way it's filmed and the narration by Chastain. The style and visuals are impressive for a first-time director and work very well - clearly Sorkin understands what makes film a special and unique medium. However the process of building the 'business,' while initially fun, ends up wearing thin as things get more complicated, slightly repetitive and not explained too much. On top of this, flicking back and forth from the poker games to Molly's scenes with Jaffey, complicate the narrative in an already slightly complex plot (although with a character like Jaffey being played by Elba, it's very welcome to have him peppered throughout the movie). Sorkin also certainly adds messages and a heart to his film, but this can often be lost in the end amongst the beefy plot.

Despite the occasionally convoluted plot however, so long as an audience has enough attention, it's not too hard to jump back on board if you get lost. This is mostly due to fantastic writing, something we have come to expect (although still take for granted) from Sorkin. Whatever flaw that can be found in the film, can equally be made up for by witty, fast-paced writing, which embellishes the whole film and adds a tremendous amount of depth to the characters. Once again he proves himself to be one of the master bards of our generation. At times though you just want the script to slow down and relax, for us to feel comfortable and not be prepared for constant verbal jousting; it can be exhausting, especially around the point where the film begins to run out of steam.

Still it's brought back to life and we're made to be constantly aware and entertained by the wonderful cast who are all on top of their game. With a decent supporting cast including the likes of Michael Cera, who seems to slowly be distancing himself from Superbad's Evan (a character he seems to play frequently), Chris O'Dowd and Kevin Costner, proving to be a much more interesting father than in Man of Steel. The centre-point of the film revolves around Idris Elba and, even more so, Jessica Chastain, who really are the heart and soul of the movie - along with the script, of course; but who knows how this script could have fared with another cast? They are both excellent and play off each other very well, their scenes with one another electric at all times. Chastain is the one who really steals the scenes though, consistently captivating to watch and apparently effortlessly showing the progression of Molly.

All in all, Molly's Game is an impressive first time directing for Sorkin and shows his transition from writing to directing will hopefully be a smooth one, particularly if he can direct his own wonderful scripts. At times you can tell he consulted with friend and fellow director David Fincher (with whom he worked with for The Social Network), so I think we're yet to really see his own style and what he can really bring to the director's chair. A promising debut with a top-notch script, intriguing plot and excellent performances from the leads, Molly's Game is a winning hand.

TL;DR

• Just awful
• Ridiculous, boring story stuffed with silly side-stories in a failed attempt to engage the audience and not let them realise they've run out of ideas
• Music from the other bands only emphasise the annoying noise coming from the main characters
• The dance choreography is good, but sadly the editing doesn't allow us to enjoy it
• Anna Kendrick is likeable as ever, but is playing the same character she always does
• Hailee Steinfeld needs to go back to how she was in True Grit
• Rebel Wilson is truly awful - crass, unfunny and annoying; an insult to comedy

Pitch Perfect 3 wasn't my choice of film to go and see; and if there's ever a fourth, yet again I won't choose to see that one either. Sadly though, despite protests, attempts at compromise and pleas that I hadn't seen the others so it wouldn't make sense, I was dragged, kicking and screaming, into Screen 4 and told to be quiet and enjoy it. Enjoy it I did not, but at the very least I did stay quiet... Quieter than one should be in a comedy, without a single laugh emanating from my cringing face. I can only pray I won't be dragged to a mess like this again. Unfunny, embarrassing and incoherent, it baffles me that any film of this calibre can make it to a trilogy.

The story is absolutely incoherent and not engaging in the slightest. It's akin to an X-Factor documentary more than a musical film. Giving up on their careers for a competition isn't the sort of message Hollywood should be giving to millennials struggling to get to grips with adulthood and heading to Europe is the most cliched move you can imagine - naturally every American franchise heads to Europe as soon as they run out of ideas. The competition itself means very little to the overall plot, with the writers having to shove in plot lines like Beca's romance and Amy's daddy issues to fatten up an otherwise depressingly thin and unengaging plot. Though it may be strange that the most boring story is the central one that the film revolves around, the really sad irony is that the side-stories are in fact the more interesting parts of the film. It's as though this film can't decide what genre it is or even what story it should be telling. This results in the film being even more infuriating.

'Perhaps the music can save it,' I hoped. Sadly, unless you like subpar cover groups, this is unlikely to be the case. It's problematic when other groups are more talented and entertaining than the central one you're supposed to care about. If you were ever unsure about a cappella, this will not make you a fan. At times you'd be forgiven for assuming they were some sort of Alvin and the Chipmunks tribute band instead. At the very least the dancing is choreographed and performed well, allowing the dancing to be the best element to the movie - it's just disappointing the editing can't allow the camera to pause on one shot long enough to let us appreciate it.

It's recently been said that modern American comedies are not what they used to be; this film is simple proof to back up that claim. The characters should be charming, funny and enjoyable to spend time with. As it happens, the cast of The Bellas are a strange bunch, but not in that charming, quirky way so many coming-of-age teen movies are. They're not particularly endearing, although at least they do work well together and come across as good friends - largely in the way they speak over each other, constantly cheer each other on, have group hugs... This can't fail to make you in the audience feel like an outsider, not welcome to join in and be part of The Bellas. Not that this is a bad thing; with a group of characters who are so similar, ditzy and brainless, I think I'd rather spend an hour and a half with one of the other groups. The main spokespeople for The Bellas is mainly confined to three main characters; namely Anna Kendrick's Beca, Hailee Steinfeld's Emily and Rebel Wilson's Fat Amy. I'm still confident that Anna Kendrick has the ability to broaden her range of characters - she's been playing the same sort of person for years. Still, despite her wasted potential in this film, she's fortunately likeable nevertheless and it's a relief that she's the central character as opposed to one of the others. Similarly, Hailee Steinfeld showed excellent promise years back when she got an Oscar nomination for her role in True Grit. How the mighty have fallen; it's noticeable that no other Oscar nominations have come her way since. If she were to distance herself from films like this and apply her likeable personality and brilliant talent, she'd be fighting the awards off with a golden stick. Sadly the third main character we see far too much of is Rebel Wilson. How she seems to be moderately successful I'll never understand. The polar opposite to Kendrick and Steinfeld, Wilson's not at all likeable, nor is she anywhere near as funny as her character was intended to be. With desperate, pathetic jokes and crass humour which shows an utter lack of wit, I can only hope that her lines were improvised and not written; such an embarrassment couldn't fail to end the careers of the writers (assuming there were any writers, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't). The only saving grace in terms of comedy are Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. Although not all their jokes hit the mark, their lines are the only sections of the film that bare any resemblance to comedy and they really do deserve more.

Without seeing the previous two I can't comment on them, but I'm sure they can't possibly be worse than this. Perhaps one of the worst films I've seen in a while. It makes other disappointments in 2017 seem wonderful in comparison. Good dance choreography and occasional enjoyable music, can't save a film drowning in irritating noise from The Bellas, an incoherent central story consistently distracted by side-plots, ditzy and annoying characters talking nonsense over each other and unfunny, crass and embarrassing attempts at comedy that fall flat on their face, with most of them coming from one character in particular... Pitch Perfect 3 is so far from 'perfect', I can only hope that a fourth will never come to pass.